ID/Creationism challenge

[PixyMisa]

What advantage does the fantastic scenario of MWI have over the traditional Copenhagen view?

Empirically? None whatsoever. The predictions of the Many Worlds interpretation are identical in every way to the predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation.

That's why we call them interpretations rather than hypotheses.

 

[sphenisc]

We, all know that life exists.

Good we agree on the observations then.

We are looking for the scientific evidence that it was created by a creator.

Don't shift the goalposts. The OP asks for "...the scientific evidence to support ID and Creationism!", which is what I provided.

There is mounds of self supporting evidence to support the current scientific and universally excepted accepted process for the development of intelligent life.

ftfy

Where is your evidence or experiment that shows God did it?

Where's your evidence or experiment that shows God did it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Don't shift the goalposts. The OP asks for "...the scientific evidence to support ID and Creationism!", which is what I provided.

Really? Where?

 

[sphenisc]

Really? Where?

Remember the post of mine which you denied was evidence? That was it.

 

[BadBoy]

TThe one proposition for which you have provided evidence in this and other threads is that your desire to sound knowledgeable vastly outstrips your knowledge.

The more you know, the more you know you dont know....

 

[BadBoy]

Remember the post of mine which you denied was evidence? That was it.

poo poo.

 

[Philosaur]

randman, do you deny that MWI is a valid interpretation of QM?

Not asking if you *like* it, (obviously you do not), but if you think it's a valid interpretation.

 

[Philosaur]

Remember the post of mine which you denied was evidence? That was it.

Do you think that "Life exists" is evidence for Creationism--but not for any competing theories?

 

[PixyMisa]

Remember the post of mine which you denied was evidence? That was it.

Oh, that. That's not evidence at all, much less scientific evidence. Sorry.

 

[randman]

randman, do you deny that MWI is a valid interpretation of QM?

Not asking if you *like* it, (obviously you do not), but if you think it's a valid interpretation.

No, I do not deny that. Said all along if you want to argue MWI, go ahead. I don't think it really resolves the problems it says but I can't say I fully have a handle on it. You read different things from different MWI proponents on some of the details, and the theory has grown over the years.....

 

[randman]

Empirically? None whatsoever. The predictions of the Many Worlds interpretation are identical in every way to the predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation.

That's why we call them interpretations rather than hypotheses.

Maybe MWI does. I still don't get how MWI explains locality and quantum entanglement in the quantum teleportation experiments.

But more to the point: isn't MWI an attempt to preserve particles as fundamentally physical things obeying classical laws of physics?

 

[randman]

Empirically? None whatsoever. The predictions of the Many Worlds interpretation are identical in every way to the predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation.

That's why we call them interpretations rather than hypotheses.

Also, you forget one thing. Copenhagen is based on what we observe without adding things we do not. MWI is based on adding a huge new factor, a gazillion alternate universes.

So if someone says QM shows this. It's not really "interpretation" as you suggest, and they are typically talking about the Copenhagen understanding of what is happening; that is no hidden variables, no alternate universes, etc,.....just what the experiments show.

The main reason for MWI is the results appear to violate basic principles of physical reality. The simplest explanation is to just accept the evidence indicates particles are not strictly physical in the first place.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Here's one for example. Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue as evidence for a young earth based on biochemistry. Also the bold prediction once found, we'd find others with the same situation.

I would also predict, though not a YECer, that other dinosaurs will large bones will be discovered buried in different soil that shows a similar lack of decomposition, though not all.

The only reason anyone thinks the fossils are old is due to evolutionist dating methods. If it were not for that, they would be assumed to be young as it was not envisioned such soft tissue and organic molecules of formerly living tissue could survive more than 10,000 yrs and certainly not 65 million years.

Take out any evo rebuttal and it's a slam dunk for creationists in terms of the age of the fossils not being millions of years old.

You mean Radiometric dating right? The dating that's based on the perfectly observable and completely accurate half-lives of the radioactive elements involved? The one that has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution and is instead part of nuclear physics, a well researched and incredibly useful branch of science?

Those dating methods?

 

[PixyMisa]

Maybe MWI does. I still don't get how MWI explains locality and quantum entanglement in the quantum teleportation experiments.

But more to the point: isn't MWI an attempt to preserve particles as fundamentally physical things obeying classical laws of physics?

I'm not sure what that even means.

The thing you have to remember is that there is absolutely no empirical difference between Copenhagen and Many Worlds, or any other sound interpretation. There is only one set of equations, no matter which interpretation you wrap around them.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also, you forget one thing. Copenhagen is based on what we observe without adding things we do not. MWI is based on adding a huge new factor, a gazillion alternate universes.

I'm not forgetting anything. It makes absolutely no difference. If you run the numbers, the predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation are always identical.

So if someone says QM shows this. It's not really "interpretation" as you suggest, and they are typically talking about the Copenhagen understanding of what is happening; that is no hidden variables, no alternate universes, etc,.....just what the experiments show.

Nope. The experiments match the equations. The Copenhagen interpretation is one way of thinking about the experimental results; no more valid or accurate than Many Worlds.

The main reason for MWI is the results appear to violate basic principles of physical reality.

Doesn't matter. If you predict the outcome of an experiment based on the Many Worlds interpretation, it works exactly as well as the Copenhagen interpretation. There is no difference.

Look at the Elitzur-Vaidman quantum bomb tester. You can use it to detect, with 100% accuracy, which of a batch of explosives are good and which are bad.

The basic design identifies all the good bombs but detonates two thirds of them in the process; with refinements you can approach 100% intact while still having 100% identified.

This is not a thought experiment. The device has been built and tested, and it really works.

In effect, the bomb tester works by blowing up the bombs in another universe, leaving us with intact bombs and the information identifying them.

You can describe it using the Copenhagen interpretation if you like. It's every bit as valid but conceptually more complicated.

Either way, it's just how the Universe works.

 

[ehcks]

Look at the Elitzur-Vaidman quantum bomb tester.

WHAT!?

I am so glad I'm not into quantum mechanics because that seems so impossible I feel stupid for now knowing it's true. And they do stuff like this often?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Don't shift the goalposts. The OP asks for "...the scientific evidence to support ID and Creationism!", which is what I provided.

I read your discussion where you presented your evidence.

Wow.

By your definition, the existence of books is evidence for the book creation fairy.

You have to be joking. No one can possibly think that is a useful definition of evidence.

 

[Wowbagger]

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.

Organisms exist.
Organisms are alive.
Life exists.

This matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, thus it is evidence for Creationism.

Door Ding Gnome Theory* is the belief that the dings we find in our car doors are caused by magical gnomes who place them there with special hammers and picks, when no one is looking.

Car doors exist.
Car doors have dings.
Hammers and picks exist.

This matches one of the conclusions drawn from Door Ding Gnome Theory, thus it is evidence for Door Ding Gnome Theory.


(*As originally envisioned by Gary Larson)

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Maybe MWI does. I still don't get how MWI explains locality and quantum entanglement in the quantum teleportation experiments.

An hour ago, after my students had finished working through the details of quantum teleportation, I explained a modal (many-worlds) interpretation of the algorithm. There are quite a few other folks here who could explain MWI to you as well.

First, though, you'll need to stop thinking you already know it all. Then you'll need to learn enough basic quantum mechanics so you can perform calculations on those quantum states whose relevance to physical reality you have been denying.

But more to the point: isn't MWI an attempt to preserve particles as fundamentally physical things obeying classical laws of physics?

No.

Also, you forget one thing. Copenhagen is based on what we observe without adding things we do not. MWI is based on adding a huge new factor, a gazillion alternate universes.

As we have seen, your personal Copenhagen interpretation adds all sorts of things that are not really implied by observation. As for MWI, you don't have to believe all of those alternate universes actually exist (although there may be some metaphysical advantages to believing they do).

So if someone says QM shows this. It's not really "interpretation" as you suggest, and they are typically talking about the Copenhagen understanding of what is happening; that is no hidden variables, no alternate universes, etc,.....just what the experiments show.

If all you care about is what the experiments show, then you shouldn't be talking about the Copenhagen interpretations. You should be talking about the Born rule, unitary operators, and other mathematical/scientific stuff.

The main reason for MWI is the results appear to violate basic principles of physical reality. The simplest explanation is to just accept the evidence indicates particles are not strictly physical in the first place.

The experimental results violate EPR's personal conception of physical reality. That means their concepts were flawed in some way. There are several different ways to repair their concepts.

When you're just talking about your own personal metaphysical beliefs, no one will care how you choose to pretend your thinking has advanced beyond Einstein's.

When you proclaim that your metaphysical beliefs are scientific, or that your own favorite variation of the Copenhagen interpretations is the only possible metaphysics, then you're flat out wrong and will likely be called on it.

By the way, you have provided absolutely no scientific evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism.

 

[GeeMack]

You have to be joking. No one can possibly think that is a useful definition of evidence.

Apparently someone can.